Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Explorations in Media Ecology
  4. Volume 23, Issue 2
  5. Article
Artificial Intelligence and Media Ecology
  • ISSN: 1539-7785
  • E-ISSN: 2048-0717

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI), the understanding and building of computational agents that act intelligently, is claimed to be a powerful, pervasive medium. Although we interact with it and hear a lot about it, we do not ‘see’ AI but experience its manifestations and/or outcomes, such as and virtual assistants. A criterion for deeming an artificial agent as intelligent has been already proposed by Turing in 1950, coined as the ‘Imitation Game’, where a machine takes the place of a man, known as the Turing test. Despite the test being initially conceived as a make-believe game, AI has been enmeshed in major fields of human social activity and co-determines our lives. In this article, AI is compared with the media type of theatre performance, the epitome of make-believe, on the basis of intermediality. Furthermore, the analogies between AI and theatre are discussed and the paradigm of the puppet theatre as well as the medium of the mask prevail in the analysis. Findings are discussed, especially in light of the mind–body split and the alignment problem, and their implications are contemplated, allowing a re-estimation and re-framing of the Turing test in its theatrical and performative dimension.

© 2024 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/eme_00203_1
2024-07-31
2024-09-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alanen, L. (1989), ‘Descartes’s dualism and the philosophy of mind’, Revue de Métaphysique et De Morale, 94:3, pp. 391–413.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anton, C. (2014), ‘Diachronic phenomenology: A methodological thread within media ecology’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 13:1, pp. 9–36, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.13.1.9_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Apter, D. (2006), ‘Politics as theatre: An alternative view of the rationalities of power’, in J. Alexander, B. Giesen and J. Mast (eds), Social Performance: Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–56, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616839.008.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Auslander, P. (1999), Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Auslander, P. (2002), ‘Live from cyberspace: Or, I was sitting at my computer this guy appeared he thought I was a bot’, PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, 24:1, pp. 16–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Auslender, V. (2023), ‘ChatGPT isn’t even close to being intelligent’, CTECH by CALCALIST, 16 April, https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/nt9qoqmzz. Accessed 8 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baek, I.-C., Park, T. H., Ha, T. G. and Kim, K.-J. (2022), ‘Turing test framework for cooperative games’, in Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG), 21–24 August, Beijing, China, pp. 568–69, Rishon LeZion: Calcalist/CTech, https://doi.org/10.1109/CoG51982.2022.9893684.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell, J. (2014), ‘Playing with the eternal uncanny’, in D. N. Posner, C. Orenstein and J. Bell (eds), The Routledge Companion to Puppetry and Material Performance, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 43–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Giannachi, G., Walker, B., Marshall, J. and Rodden, T. (2012), ‘Uncomfortable interactions’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘12), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 5–10 May, https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208347.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bentley, E. (1965), The Life of the Drama, London: Methuen.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bering, J. M. (2006), ‘The folk psychology of souls’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29:5, pp. 453–62, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X06009101.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolter, J. D. and Grusin, R. (2000), Remediation: Understanding New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bond, J. (1988), It Couldn’t Happen Here, UK: Entertainment Film Distributors.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bostrom, N. (2017), Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Braga, A. and Logan, R. K. (2017), ‘The emperor of strong AI has no clothes: Limits to artificial intelligence’, Information, 8:4, p. 156, https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040156.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown, K. (2006), ‘Auslander’s robot’, International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 2:1, pp. 3–21, https://doi.org/10.1386/padm.2.1.3/1.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Brown, K. (2008), ‘The Auslander test: Or, of bots and humans’, International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 4:2–3, pp. 181–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bruhn, J. and Schirrmacher, B. (2022), ‘Intermedial studies’, in J. Bruhn and B. Schirrmacher (eds), Intermedial Studies: An Introduction to Meaning across Media, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 3–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Butler, J. (2006), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Caillois, R. ([1958] 2001), Man, Play and Games, Urbana, IL and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cali, D. D. (2020), ‘The inner sensorium in media ecology: Justification for study of media ecology’, New Explorations: Studies in Culture and Communication, 1:2, pp. 55–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Campbell, H. A. (2006), ‘Postcyborg ethics: A new way to speak of technology’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 5:4, pp. 279–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Cary, P. (2000), Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Constanzo, C. (2021), ‘Memories of a German soldier in the Médoc, 1940–1942’, Jane Anson Inside Bordeaux, https://janeanson.com/memories-of-a-german-soldier-in-the-medoc-1940-1942. Accessed 5 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Corey, A. (2014), ‘Diachronic phenomenology: A methodological thread within media ecology’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 13:1, pp. 9–36, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.13.1.9_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Craig, E. G. (1911), The Art of Theatre, London: William Heinemann Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dennett, D. ([1984] 2006), ‘Can machines think?’, in C. Teuscher (ed.), Alan Turing: Life and Legacy of a Great Thinker, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 295–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dixon, S. (2007), Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation (with contributions by B. Smith), Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Elam, K. (1980), The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama, London and New York: Methuen.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Elleström, L. (2010),‘The modalities of media: A model for understanding intermedial relations’, in L. Elleström (ed.), Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Elleström, L. (2021), ‘The modalities of media II: An expanded model for understanding intermedial relations’, in L. Elleström (ed.), Beyond Media Borders, Volume 1: Intermedial Relations among Multimodal Media, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Evreinov, N. (1970), The Theatre in Life, New York: B. Blom.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Féral, J. and Bermingham, R. P. (2002), ‘Theatricality: The specificity of theatrical language’, SubStance, 31:2, pp. 94–108, https://doi.org/10.1353/sub.2002.0026.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Führer, H. and Schoene (2022), ‘Media medoalities of theatrical space’, in J. Bruhn and B. Schirrmacher (eds) (2021), Intermedial Studies: An Introduction to Meaning Across Media, London: Routledge, pp. 255–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gardner, H. (1993), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 2nd ed., London: Fontana Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Giannachi, G. (2004), Virtual Theatres: An Introduction, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Goffman, E. (1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Goleman, D. (2004), Daniel Goleman Omnibus: Emotional Intelligence & Working with Emotional Intelligence, London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Gonçalves, B. (2023), ‘The Turing test is a thought experiment’, Minds & Machines, 33:1, pp. 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09616-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Gorman, L. and Polski, M. (2012), ‘Responding to humanoid robots: A call to examine the role of instincts’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 11:3, pp. 313–23, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.11.3-4.313_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Gozzi Jr., R. (2002), ‘Algorithm versus aphorism’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 1:2, pp. 135–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Guddemi, P. (2019), ‘“You are adapting more to me than I am adapting to you” (but what does more mean?): Cybernetic and Foucaultianexplorations of the domain of power’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 18:3, pp. 297–306, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.18.3.297_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Gunkel, D. J. (2006), ‘The machine question: Ethics, alterity, and technology’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 5:4, pp. 259–78, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.5.4.259_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Gunkel, D. J. (2012), The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Gunkel, D. J. (2017), ‘The internet of things: When your toaster and self-driving car start talking about you behind your back’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 16:2, pp. 251–54, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.16.2-3.251_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Halverson, J. (1992), ‘Havelock on Greek orality and literacy’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 53:1, pp. 148–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hassenzahl, M. (2004), ‘The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product’, in M. A. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. M. Monk and P. C. Wright (eds), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 31–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hillier, M. (1976), Automata and Mechanical Toys: An Illustrated History, London: Jupiter Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hilton, J. (1993), ‘Theatricality and technology: Pygmalion and the myth of the intelligent machine’, in J. Hilton (ed.), New Directions in Theatre, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 156–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Imperial War Museums (n.d.), ‘How Alan Turing cracked the enigma code’, https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-alan-turing-cracked-the-enigma-code. Accessed 5 January 2024.
  51. Keary, T. (2023), ‘ChatGPT is now smarter than ever: Here’s everything you need to know’, Techopedia, 13 November, https://www.techopedia.com/chatgpt-is-now-smarter-than-ever-heres-everything-you-need-to-know. Accessed 8 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kleist, H. von (1978), ‘Über das Marionettentheater’, in S. Streller (ed.), Werke und Briefe in Vier Bänden, Band 3, Berlin: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, pp. 473–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Kurzweil, R. (2005), The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, New York: Viking Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Landy, R. J. (1993), Persona and Performance: The Meaning of Role in Drama, Therapy, and Everyday Life, New York: Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lassègue, J. (1996), ‘What kind of Turing test did Turing have in mind?’, Tekhnema: Journal of Philosophy and Technology, article first, http://tekhnema.free.fr/3Lasseguearticle.htm. Accessed 4 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Laurel, B. (1993), Computers as Theatre, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Levenson, R. B. (2018), ‘Where is my attention? A lesson in listening’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 17:4, pp. 437–41, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.17.4.437_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Logan, R. K. (2017), ‘Can computers become conscious, an essential condition for the singularity?’, Information, 8:4, p. 161, https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040161.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Longo, G. (2009), ‘Laplace, Turing and the “Imitation Game” Impossible Geometry’, in Epstein, R., Roberts, G. and Beber, G. (eds), Parsing the Turing Test, Dordrecht: Springer Nature, pp. 377–411, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_23.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Lösel, G. (2023), ‘Puppets, pets or deputies: On the relationship between actors and avatars’, in D. Mersch, A. Rey, T. Grunwald, J. Sternagel, L. Kegel and M. D. Loertscher (eds), Actor & Avatar: A Scientific & Artistic Catalog, Subtexte 27, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, pp. 224–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Magerko, B., Manzoul, W., Riedl, M., Baumer, A., Fuller, D., Luther, K. and Pearce, C. (2009), ‘An empirical study of cognition and theatrical improvisation’, in Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, Berkeley, CA, 26–30 October, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 117–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Mathewson, K. and Mirowski, P. (2017), ‘Improvised comedy as a Turing test’, in 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Workshop on Machine Learning for Creativity and Design, Long Beach, CA, 4–9 December, New York: Curran Associates Inc. and Red Hook, pp. 1–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. McLuhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. McLuhan, M. and Fiore, Q. ([1967] 2008), The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects, Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Mersch, D. (2023), ‘The mask’, in D. Mersch, A. Rey, T. Grunwald, J. Sternagel, L. Kegel and M. D. Loertscher (eds), Actor & Avatar: A Scientific & Artistic Catalog, Subtexte 27, Bielefeld: Verlag transcript, pp.86–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Meyer-Dinkgräfe, D. and Watt, D. (eds) (2010), Ethical Encounters: Boundaries of Theatre, Performance and Philosophy, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Michie, D. (2001), ‘Return of the imitation game: 1: Commercial requirements and a prototype’, Linköping University Electronic Press Website, 18 January, https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-191108. Accessed 23 May 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Mirski, R. and Bickhard, M. H. (2021),‘Conventional minds: An interactivist perspective on social cognition and its enculturation’, New Ideas in Psychology, 62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100856.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Montola, M. (2009), ‘Games and Pervasive Games’, in Montola, M., Stenros, J. and Waern, A. (eds.), Pervasive Games: Theory and Design, Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 7–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374853-9.00001-5.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Mori, M. (1970), ‘The uncanny valley’, Energy, 7:4, pp. 33–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Muller, P., Burger, B., Giovanni, J. D. and Ziegler, M. (2019), ‘Understanding the telematic apparatus’, Journal of Network Music and Arts, 1:1, pp. 1–26, https://commons.library.stonybrook.edu/jonma/vol1/iss1/4. Accessed 5 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Nagel, T. (1986), The View from Nowhere, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Noever, D. and Ciolino, M. (2022), ‘The Turing deception’, International Journal on Cybernetics & Informatics (IJCI), 12:1, pp. 97–112, https://doi.org/10.5121/ijci.2023.120108.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Norman, K. L. (2008), Cyberpsychology: An Introduction to Human–Computer Interaction, New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Oppy, G. and Dowe, D. (2021), ‘The Turing test’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2021 ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/turing-test/.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Otto, U. (2013), Internetauftritte: Eine Theatergeschichte der Neuen Medien, Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Petricini, T. (2022), Friendship and Technology: A Philosophical Approach to Computer-Mediated Communication, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Picard, R. W. (1997), Affective Computing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Pischel, R. and Tawney, M. (1902), The Home of the Puppet Play, London: Luzac & Co., Publishers in the India Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Poole, D. L. and Mackworth, A. K. (2023), Artificial Intelligence: Foundation of Computational Agents, 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://artint.info/3e/html/ArtInt3e.html. Accessed 8 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Postman, N. (1992), Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, New York: Vintage Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Proudfoot, D. (2020), ‘Rethinking Turing’s test and the philosophical implications’, Minds and Machines, 30:4, pp. 487–512, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09534-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Rabin, S. (2017), ‘The illusion of intelligence’, in S. Rabin (ed.), Game AI Pro 3: Collected Wisdom of Game AI Professionals, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 1–9, https://www.gameaipro.com/GameAIPro3/GameAIPro3_Chapter01_The_Illusion_of_Intelligence.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Raskin, J. (2000), The Humane Interface: New Directions for Interactive Systems, New York: ACM Press and Addison-Wesley.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Reisberg, D. (2013), Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind, 5th ed., New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Robbins, T. W. (2011), ‘Cognition: The ultimate brain function’, Neuropsychopharmacology, 36:1, pp. 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2010.171.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (2016), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd ed., Harlow: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Ryle, G. (1949), The Concept of Mind, London: Hutchinsons’s University Library.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Salter, C. (2010), Entangled: Technology and the Transformation of Performance, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Schacter, D., Gilbert, D. and Wegner, D. (2012), Psychology, European ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Schechner, R. (2013), Performance Studies. An Introduction, 3rd ed., London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Schrum, J., Karpov. I. V. and Miikkulainen, R. (2011), ‘UT⁁2: Human-like behavior via neuroevolution of combat behavior and replay of human traces’, in 2011 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG’11), Seoul, South Korea, 31 August–3 September, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 329–36, https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=IEEE. Accessed 3 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Schuchardt, R. M. (2016), ‘The technological system 2.0: Suggested amendments and revisions under digital assumptions’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 15:3, pp. 221–27, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.15.3-4.221_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Scott, R. B. (2011), ‘The body electric: Notions of self and identity in the age of virtual reality’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 10:3, pp. 247–62, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.10.3-4.247_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Seress, Á. (2014), ‘Theatres we live by: Perspectives on cognitive theatre studies’, Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), 20:2, pp. 59–77, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44789706. Accessed 7 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Shaker, N., Togelius, J. and Nelson, M. J. (2016), Procedural Content Generation in Games, Cham: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42716-4.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Silvio, T. (2019), Puppets, Gods, and Brands: Theorizing the Age of Animation from Taiwan, Honolulu, HI: Hawaii University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Stanislavski, C. (1961), Creating a Role (ed. H. I. Popper), London and New York: Theatre Arts Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Strate, L. (1999), ‘Understanding MEA’, In Medias Res, 1:1, pp. 1–3, https://www.media-ecology.org/resources/Documents/IMR/IMRv1n1.pdf. Accessed 4 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Strate, L. (2008), ‘Studying media asmedia: McLuhan and the media ecology approach’, MediaTropeseJournal, I, pp. 127–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Svahn, M. (2014), ‘Persuasive pervasive games: The case of impacting energy consumption’, doctoral dissertation, Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, https://ex.hhs.se/dissertations/748740-FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 4 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Timplalexi, E. (2016), ‘The human and the chatterbot’, Performance Research, 21:5, pp. 59–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2016.1223449.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Timplalexi, Ε. (2022), ‘Theatre performance through the intermedial lens’, Performance Research, 27:8, pp. 22–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2022.2224196.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Timplalexi, E. (2023), ‘Challenging key certainties in communication through Elleström’smedium-centred model of communication: “Transfer” and “medium”’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 22:4, pp. 399–420.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Timplalexi, E. and Führer, H. (2023), ‘Reconsidering Elleström’smedium-centered communication model: A critical inquiry’, EKPHRASIS, 2, pp. 93–114, https://www.ekphrasisjournal.ro/docs/R1/30e6.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Timplalexi, E. and Santorineos, M. (2021), ‘Experiments in digitally enhanced automatic collaborative writing and performing’, Acotaciones, 46:1, pp. 233–55, https://doi.org/10.32621/ACOTACIONES.2021.46.09.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Turing, A. M. (1950), ‘Computing machinery and intelligence’, Mind, LIX:236, pp. 433–60, https://artint.info/3e/html/ArtInt3e.html. Accessed 2 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Wang, P., Liu, K. and Dougherty, Q. (2018), ‘Conceptions of artificial intelligence and singularity’, Information, 9:4, p. 79, https://doi.org/10.3390/info9040079.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Warwick, K. and Shah, H. (2017), ‘The future of human–machine communications: The Turing test’, in A. De Grey and J. Rossiter (eds), The Next Step: Exponential Life, Madrid: BBVA-Open Mind, pp. 76–99, https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BBVA-OpenMind-book-The-Next-Step-Exponential-Life-1-1.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Winnicott, D. W. (1953), ‘Not-me, transitional objects and transitional phenomena: A study of the first possession’, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, pp. 89–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Yannakakis, G. N. and Togelius, J. (2018), Artificial Intelligence and Games, Cham: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/eme_00203_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): chatterbots; communication; intermediality; media ecology; mind-body split; philosophy of AI; theatre performance

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error